Getting climate, energy & environment news right.

Subscribe

Conservatives have been vocal about our climate for years. Those voices won’t be ignored any longer.

[searchandfilter id="17558"]

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) defended the economic and national security importance of the state’s booming data center industry this week, days after approving a budget that imposes Virginia’s first tax on the sector’s electricity consumption.

Spanberger said the new budget strikes a balance between ensuring data centers “pay their fair share” while preserving an industry she said is critical to Virginia’s economy and the nation’s technological leadership in an interview with Politico.

Read more in the Washington Examiner here.

Spanberger draws a hard line on data center bans: ‘Walking away from the table’

Source

Aalo Atomics’ Aalo-X Critical Test Reactor (CTR)—dubbed “Project First Light”—has reached criticality at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), marking the fourth Department of Energy (DOE)–authorized advanced reactor startup under the federal push to accelerate reactor testing and demonstration.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said July 6 that Aalo’s test reactor, which DOE referred to as Aalo-X, “successfully completed a zero-power fueled criticality demonstration” at INL under DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program. Aalo told POWER the Critical Test Reactor reached criticality at 12:20 a.m. MT on July 4, allowing DOE to exceed the target in Executive Order 14301, which directed the department to approve at least three reactors to reach criticality by July 4, 2026.

Read more in Power Magazine here.

Aalo Atomics’ Test Reactor Reaches Criticality at INL, Fourth DOE-Authorized Advanced Reactor by July 4

Source

This piece was initially published in The National Interest.

Defense-driven innovation has repeatedly reshaped the American economy. Advanced nuclear and other mission-critical technologies could become the next major breakthrough.

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) investments in mission-critical technologies have helped catalyze some of America’s largest technological breakthroughs, with significant positive spillovers for the economy. The internet, GPS, and the modern semiconductor industry all trace back to defense agencies developing tools to meet specific national security needs. The Navy’s nuclear propulsion program for submarines and surface ships transformed what military operations could achieve, and that success became the foundation for the commercial civilian nuclear industry.

The Pentagon could play a similar role across a wide range of innovative energy technologies, from next-generation nuclear and geothermal power to long-duration storage. The benefits won’t be limited to a more energy-secure, resilient national defense. It could meaningfully catalyze the deployment of affordable, reliable, and cleaner energy for American households and businesses. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Defense Energy Demand Can Accelerate Advanced Nuclear Deployment 

The Department of Defense can help accelerate energy innovation in several ways. One is through the department’s own energy use. DOD set a target of 99.9 percent power availability for critical missions by 2030, meaning just under nine hours of downtime per year. As the federal government’s largest energy consumer, accounting for roughly three-quarters of all federal energy use, DOD’s investments in resilience could help develop first-of-a-kind technologies. 

With the highest capacity factor of any energy source at 92.3 percent, nuclear energy could help achieve DOD’s target. A clear priority for the administration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May 2025 directing the DOD to deploy advanced nuclear reactor technology for national security. 

Out of that came the Army’s Janus Program, which identified nine candidate bases in late 2025 and aims to have an operating, Army-regulated reactor in the United States by September 2028. In April, the Air Force named potential sites (Buckley Space Force Base in Colorado and Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana) and selected three companies (Westinghouse, Radiant, and Antares Nuclear) to build and operate the reactors. One of those designs, Antares’ Mark-0, achieved its first fueled criticality at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in June 2026. This marks the first step in demonstrating that the reactor is safe and operational. 

Project Pele is another notable effort. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Defense Department has spent the past several years demonstrating that a small, factory-built reactor can be designed, licensed, transported, and operated safely outside a traditional nuclear power plant. The purpose of these initiatives has not been to promote one technology over another but about resilience: a reactor small enough to be trucked, shipped, or flown to forward and domestic bases, generating at least 1.5 megawatts of continuous power, fitting inside a standard 20-foot shipping container, and running for up to three years without refueling. 

The microreactor offers several advantages. It provides power that doesn’t depend on a vulnerable grid, reducing the need for fuel convoys and storage facilities for bases that rely on diesel. Microgrids can also give the military greater flexibility by enabling operations across a broader range of locations. The program has already delivered a full reactor core’s worth of TRi-structural ISOtropic particle (TRISO) fuel to Idaho National Laboratory and is targeting formal system testing in 2027 and electricity production in 2028.

A separate, equally important demonstration happened in February, when the Pentagon and DOE airlifted a 5-megawatt microreactor nearly 700 miles by C-17 from a base in California to Hill Air Force Base in Utah. Built by Valar Atomics, a private nuclear startup, under DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program, it was a real test of how quickly a reactor could be moved and stood up on a base. Valar aims to sell power on a test basis in 2027 and go fully commercial by 2028. 

>>>READ: Florida Is Leading the Next Nuclear Revolution

Defense Energy Investments Can Lower Costs and Strengthen US Energy Innovation 

Whether these programs translate into widescale deployment of advanced reactors in the United States remains to be seen. Building first-of-a-kind technologies can flatten cost curves, build out the specialized workforce, and leverage the same supply chains to achieve economies of scale. At the Vogtle power plants in Georgia, for instance, costs ballooned to $30 billion, $17 billion over budget, because of an incomplete design, fractured supply chains, and an inexperienced workforce. However, costs declined by 30 percent from the third unit to the fourth as the labor force and supply chains were built up. 

Another potential benefit is a more efficient regulatory and permitting process. A rule proposed by the NRC in April would allow the commission to rely on prior federal safety evaluations, test data, and operational experience from DOE or defense authorities, rather than requiring the NRC to conduct a full, independent technical review of design elements already vetted by another federal agency. Leveraging previously authorized DOE/DOD reviews can shorten design reviews by months or up to a year and reduce non-recurring engineering costs. This eliminates duplication, lowers capital costs, and accelerates time-to-market for validated designs.

Nuclear isn’t the only technology that can benefit from government spending on energy technologies. Alternative technologies offer advantages that enhance mission capabilities. Lighter, more efficient batteries extend a foot soldier’s mission duration and reduce the weight of a soldier’s backpack. Solar photovoltaics can also lighten a soldier’s load and extend a drone’s range. More fuel-efficient engines and battery-powered vehicles reduce the need for refueling. Whether it is conventional fuels, renewables, or nuclear power, energy spending should be mission-driven first.

>>>READ: 3 Proposals to Reduce the Time and Cost of Nuclear Deployment

In fact, many government projects that have become commercial successes, such as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS, were not initially intended to meet commercial demand but were developed to meet national security needs. Entrepreneurs recognized the commercial potential of these defense-funded technologies and turned them into the everyday products we rely on today. The government’s role should be to enable efficient pathways for the private sector to spin these programs into commercial ventures when opportunities arise. 

Critically, the DOD must weigh trade-offs when choosing among energy sources and technologies. Officials should decide whether to use more expensive energy if they believe the national security benefits justify the higher costs. Politicizing energy choices or imposing costly mandates leaves the DOD worse off by diverting defense dollars from more valuable uses. 

However, if investments are channeled correctly, the federal government’s energy programs can bolster national security and help usher in new technologies that benefit consumers, the economy, and the environment. 

Mission Critical Energy Investments Can Be a Boon for American Energy Dominance

Source
large data center

Gov. Greg Abbott called for blocking new data center development in rural parts of the state during a campaign stop in East Texas on Tuesday.

“We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods,” Abbott said at the Bullard event, which primarily discussed his plan to cut property taxes, adding that this issue “dovetails right into fighting for East Texas values.”

Read more in AP News here.

Gov. Greg Abbott calls for ban on data center development in rural Texas neighborhoods

Source

The U.S. Department of Energy on Thursday said it issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to “permanently end home appliance and equipment mandates,” continuing President Trump’s campaign against limits on how much energy is used by light bulbs, washing machines, furnaces and a host of other devices.

DOE’s Appliance and Equipment Standards Program is mandated by Congress to set and update certain standards, and the notice of proposed rulemaking, or  NOPR, is framed as an “update” to the agency’s methodologies, so it is unclear if Trump’s aim is to permanently disband the program. But the proposed rule would “create hurdles” to updating standards, according to Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

Read more in Utility Dive here.

DOE wants to ‘permanently end’ appliance efficiency requirements

Source

The federal government is proposing to overhaul radiation safety regulations for nuclear power, including by eliminating a long-term principle for nuclear safety.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) this week proposed to get rid of the requirement for nuclear plants to ensure that radiation exposure is “as low as is reasonably achievable.”

Read more in The Hill here.

US moves to eliminate longtime radiation safety principle for nuclear power

Source


Reforming the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s [NRC] outdated radiation protection framework is essential to unlocking nuclear energy’s potential. Reconsidering the linear no-threshold (LNT) radiation standard could help streamline construction and lower costs, strengthening the President’s nuclear agenda without compromising safety.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The LNT model assumes that any amount of ionizing radiation, no matter how small, carries some increased cancer risk, and that this risk rises in a straight line with dose. In practice, this assumption contributes to conservative engineering requirements and exposes projects to legal challenge. Analysts from the Idaho National Laboratory argue that revising it could meaningfully reduce capital costs and construction timelines while “correct[ing] misconceptions about the risks associated with nuclear technologies.” The NRC will soon consider this change.

The model was extrapolated from high-dose data, much of it drawn from survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then applied to the very low doses typical of normal plant operation. The problem is that it sets aside the dose rate, which is central to actual risk. In other words, it is like treating drinking 14 alcoholic drinks spread across a week as equivalent to drinking 14 drinks in an hour. The model greatly overestimates the risks of low doses. 

A growing body of low-dose research, including studies of nuclear workers, medical imagers,  and populations in areas with high natural background radiation, has found little to no detectable harm at these exposure levels. Some studies have even reported possible protective effects, though this hypothesis remains disputed. Research on nuclear workers, nuclear medical imagers, and radiology professionals show lower overall mortality, an actually beneficial effect.

President Trump’s May 2025 Executive Order on NRC reform explicitly directed the commission to reconsider LNT, but did not mandate a change. Because LNT is a regulatory assumption, not a statutory law, the NRC can revise it through its own rulemaking.

>>>READ: The Department of Energy Takes on ALARA

Moving toward a standard calibrated to low-dose evidence could enable simpler, cheaper designs, particularly small modular reactors and microreactors, lowering the construction and decommissioning costs that weigh on project economics. It would also reduce the regulatory uncertainty that drives up insurance premiums and financing costs, and trim the litigation that stretches out project timelines. Easier siting and narrower grounds for activist legal challenges are steps necessary to achieve the administration’s ambition of 300-plus gigawatts of new nuclear capacity.  

 None of this means declaring radiation harmless or loosening safety. A revised standard would still preserve substantial safety margins, calibrated to actual low-dose evidence rather than to a worst-case assumption. The goal is a regulatory threshold that takes risk seriously without overstating it, one that lets nuclear plants be built and run both efficiently and safely. There is precedent: the first US commercial nuclear plant was built under pre-LNT standards, constructed in roughly four years and operated for 25 years before its retirement in 1982.  

Combined with the supply-chain loans, plant restarts, NRC timeline reforms, and DOE pilot programs already underway, revisiting LNT could help turn today’s nuclear momentum into a durable expansion, making advanced nuclear a leading option for new firm, carbon-free power in the United States.

Cut Red Tape, Make Nuclear Great Again

Source
  • Zinc-based batteries are poised for wider deployment as energy storage demand surges and potential lithium shortages loom over the next few years, officials with the International Zinc Association told Utility Dive this week.
  • U.S. zinc battery production is hindered by the high cost of scaling production and safety standards written for far more flammable lithium-ion batteries, according to a June 30 white paper coauthored by Josef Daniel-Ivad, head of the IZA’s Zinc Battery Initiative. Andrew Green, the IZA’s executive director, said in an interview that more work needs to be done to increase awareness of and comfort with zinc batteries among utilities and other end users.

Read more in Utility Dive here.

Can zinc-based batteries scale into US storage buildout?

Source

s an electric grid operator warns of potential power shortages amid this week’s heat wave, the Trump administration is issuing emergency orders aiming to maximize output.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright issued orders directing grid operator PJM to dispatch more power generation from various fossil fuel plants, as needed, despite environmental restrictions that are typically in place.

Read more in The Hill here.

Energy Department issues emergency orders for mid-Atlantic power grid amid heat wave

Source

Americans are exhausted by the cost of living—and energy sits at the heart of it. Recently published research by Kevin Dayaratna and Kat Miller at Advancing American Freedom (AAF) analyzing worldwide data finds that robust energy production is directly tied to higher incomes, greater productivity, longer life expectancy, and lower child mortality. The reality is stark: no country has ever achieved high living standards without substantial energy use. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Yet America’s regulatory regime makes energy harder, not easier, to produce—and families pay the price. Last year, federal regulation cost the U.S. economy an estimated $2 trillion—approximately $25,000 for a family of four. 

Indeed, onerous regulations on things as simple as food ingredients and food packaging have pushed grocery prices higher, and that regulations on health insurance plans have fueled the rise in health care costs. When the government inserts itself into every corner of American life, the cost to ordinary Americans is real and impacts their pocketbooks. 

It comes as no surprise that cost of living is the number one problem facing American families. Voters know what they’re experiencing and it’s real. Now, elected officials must respond accordingly. 

Upon retaking office, the Trump Administration launched a 10-to-1 deregulation initiative  and during its first year slashed Federal Register output (the official publication of new federal regulations) to its lowest level in over 30 years, reducing the regulatory burden on American families.  But Congress must do its part as well. 

Congress should pursue aggressive and commonsense permitting reform to drive down regulatory costs and relieve hardworking American families from the suffocating burden of government regulations. If regulatory burdens are driving the financial pressure Americans face, then robust policy that cuts red tape and streamlines permitting is a direct step toward relief. A broken permitting system is a not-so-hidden tax that every American pays every single day, buried in clear sight on their energy bills, their internet costs, and the price of American-made goods.  

As AAF’s research makes clear, energy abundance is the engine of the prosperity Americans want. America’s regulatory regime should reflect that simple truth and make it easier, not harder, to get electric capacity operational. 

>>>READ: How the SPEED Act Seizes the Moment on Permitting Reform

With the explosive growth of AI and emerging technologies, energy demand is sharply rising, and America needs to meet the moment with more domestic energy production. Yet the average permitting timelines for major energy projects stretch between four and seven years, with costs climbing every year due to inflation and unnecessary red tape. These permitting handcuffs risk forfeiting America’s AI and tech advantage to China. Every year of delay is another year that new capacity sits offline; energy prices stay elevated, and America loses ground in the battle for AI supremacy. Streamlining that process would lower building costs and expand American energy capacity when the country needs it most. 

The same story plays out across the broader economy. Regulatory compliance costs small manufacturers approximately $29,000 per employee per year and industrial projects take roughly 80 percent longer to permit in the United States than in other countries. Meanwhile, broadband and wireless projects are stalled by duplicative permits, unpredictable timelines, and excessive fees, leaving rural communities without the internet access that the 21st century economy—from education to healthcare to economic opportunity—increasingly requires. Regulatory bottleneck isn’t protecting Americans; it is burdening them.

Indeed, regulation sold as “protection” is, in practice, an unnecessary cost driver, passed quietly from government to business to the average consumer.

Permitting reform is the clear, actionable response to overregulation. After years of partisan stalemate, permitting reform has emerged as a genuine bipartisan opportunity. New polling shows that voters across the political spectrum support permitting reform and Congress has recently taken notice. 

>>>READ: How to Build Breakthroughs in America Without Subsidies

The House passed the SPEED Act and the PERMIT Act in December, and Senate negotiations are ongoing. But with the midterms approaching and electoral uncertainty waiting in the wings, Congress must act now to free the American people from a suffocating regulatory regime.

Republicans have an obligation to make good on their promise to make America more affordable. Overregulation is not an abstract policy problem; it is the reason families are paying more for groceries, healthcare, and energy. Permitting reform is action that can solve this lingering issue. Americans sent their representatives to Washington to lower bills, make groceries more affordable, and spur job growth. Cutting the red tape that drives up their costs is the most direct answer Congress has. 

The moment is here, and it will not wait. 

Permitting Reform – The Commonsense Fix for America’s Cost of Living Crisis

Source

Subscribe to our exclusive email designed for conservatives who care about climate.

Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.

5 Incredible Ways Economic Freedom Helps the Planet.

Sign up for our newsletter now to get the full list right in your inbox.

Thank you for signing up

Help us promote sensible solutions for both planet and prosperity.

Make a donation

Download Now

Download